Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kippax Uniting Church

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.   -- Lear's Fool 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Kippax Uniting Church]]=

:{{la|Kippax Uniting Church}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Kippax Uniting Church}})

This fails WP:GNG. Obviously an active church, but when it comes down to it, just an ordinary church and non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:I guess an Australian megachurch would indeed be notable. The List of the largest churches in Australia only lists 17 above 2000. The key thing is what "1400 people who use services at the church each week" actually means - it may mean 1400 use the church premises. In any case, see WP:BIGNUMBER for the concept of "non-notable size". StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

:: agree with above, the number of attendees is irrelevant, significant coverage is what is required which this sorely lacks. LibStar (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

:::StAnselm, I agree with everything you said in your last post, the only problem is that by pointing me to WP:BIGNUMBER instead of relevant previous AfD discussions, I don't have any feedback on the current consensus for what amounts to a preliminary presumption of a non-notabably-small church.  My thinking on this is that any [http://www.usachurches.org/church-sizes.htm large] church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

::::"My thinking on this is that any large church, 301-2000 weekend attendance, has a preliminary presumption of being notable" is not an established criterion in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I added two more references, one from the media office of the head chief minister of the ACT government, and another from the Australian federal government, each under policy I think constitute strong indications of notability, the ACT would be regional media, and the federal government would be national media.  Total references for article is currently twenty.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:I'd have to disagree with you. These are bare mentions, not significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::The [Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory] and/or his media office gave Kippax six mentions and awarded them a new program and AU$200,000.  As for what the federal government reported, that is a matter of opinion as to whether AU$50,000 is trivial or substantial notice.  The article already mentions that the ACT Chief Minister appointed one of the church ministers to be a member of the ACT Community Inclusion Board.  Two different Australian governments have given and continue to give their attention to Kippax.  I think that "bare" mentions would be more like finding the name "Kippax" in a phone book, or in a list of businesses in the Kippax district. Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:::But it's not up to us to notice the $50,000 - it's whether this has been noticed by secondary sources - of course the government makes public who is receiving the funding, but merely receiving government funding alone is not an indication of notability. Are there newspapers who see that Kippax is receiving money and decide to send a reporter down to interview the minister? It doesn't look like it. StAnselm (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Sorry to be annoying but to put your trust in the newspapers to report such stuff is really questionable. The media for the most part doesn't get religion. And, in recent times, are more interested in sensationalist reporting of religion only when members are accused of hypocricy or are somehow offending social sensibilities. Yes, it is not up to us to report on stuff, but to find the secondary sources. But I believe that you need to broaden your definition of sources to that beyond the main stream media. For example if a church denominational publication made reference to the local congregation. Stuff that Google News isn't going to pick up either. Dean Tregenza (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The notion of notability is problematic as it all is a matter of perspective. The notion of number of worshippers being an important factor is merely an indicator of ones belief of what is important from a particular perspective. I personally couldn't give a toss if a lot of people attended a local church. What is important to me is if peoples lives are transformed by the existence of that faith community in the midst of society. If a person who receives the services of the community services agency of the church were no longer available, they (at least 1400 people and their families) would notice. Other agencies would notice (especially if they didn't have the resources that UnitingCare Kippax has). Other factors that need to be taken into account is the participation of the leadership and members within the wider community. What is their influence in society? How does their belonging to this particular faith community influence what they do? The fact that one of the ministry team was specifically invited by the Chief Minister of the ACT to participate in the Canberra 2030 strategic planning process is something to note - although this wasn't reported in the media. Another examples are obviously Lin Hatfield-Dodds, Karen Middleton and John Williamson. But there are a significant number of members of the congregation that are in senior positions of leadership in the community groups and the work context (eg within the Australian Public Service). I could provide some names but generally people who want to make the world a better place like to do it without any fanfare or public notoriety ;-). Dean Tregenza (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.